|1 Feb 2002 @ 18:56, by John Finn|
Transcript: VisionTV On The Great 911 Deception
Tuesday, 29 January 2002, 11:34 am
Article: The Scoop Editor
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a transcript of a Canadian news
and current affairs programme devoted to “unanswered
questions” around the events of 911. The programme is thought
to be the first network television broadcast on the North
American continent raising serious questions about CIA
involvement in and failures in relation to the September 11th
attacks of the World Trade Center.
The following are three viewer comments on the programme..
“The most courageous and important media commentary since
Oliver Stone’s JFK.”
“The only thing about ‘The Great Deception’ that surprised me
was that a nation-wide TV channel would broadcast it.”
“VisionTV is to be applauded for venturing into this terrain.”
Note on the Programme's Makers: VisionTV Insight Mediafile
takes an up-close look at how the media deal with current issues
and events from an ethical, moral, spiritual and humanitarian
perspective. The half-hour program features VisionTV Insight
media critic Barrie Zwicker, along with the show’s regular media
panel, which includes Toronto Sun editor Lorrie Goldstein,
freelance writer and columnist Marianne Meed Ward, and One:
the Body, Mind & Spirit channel's Executive Producer, Irshad
VISION TV INSIGHT WEBSITE [link]
The Great Deception
Part 1 of a multi-part series (Part 2 airs Jan 28 10.30pm Canadian Time – Today NZT)
Transcript of Mon., Jan. 21 2002 Broadcast
What really happened on Sept. 11th? 9/11 -- Part 1.
For four months I’ve been waiting in vain for the North American media to pursue questions about the startling events of September 11th. Here’s what I want to know:
The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the morning. It’s a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. But it’s an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits – that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that.
Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk about her pet goat. Why?
It’s another 25 minutes until he makes a statement, even as flight 77 is making a bee-line for Washington, DC.
In the almost two hours of the total drama not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until it’s too late. Why? Was it total incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in minutes?
Well, unlike the U.S. Air Force, I’ll cut to the chase. Simply to ask these few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that there’s a different explanation: namely, that elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadership – which are closely intertwined – are complicit in what happened on September the 11th.
Why U.S. complicity, you ask?
Well, to stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on terrorism, to justify a war on Afghanistan for a future oil pipeline, the grab for Middle East oil, big budget increases for the military, and the general drive for global domination by the American Empire.
I know it sounds incredible.
But here’s some historical context from this book, Body of Secrets. Its author is James Bamford. Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News tonight with Peter Jennings. I learned of this book on ABC’s website.
Bamford’s information comes from interviews. With, for instance, the former dean of the U.S. intelligence community. And from government documents. It takes 80 pages to list Bamford’s more than 600 information sources.
Here’s the story. It’s 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem.
But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: “As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly ‘go soft’ on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade … quickly slipping away. …attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead…”
Continues Bamford: “Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion…”
Lemnitzer comes up with Operation Northwoods.
“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba…casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.”
An elaborate variation: create “an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft…” “At a designated time the duplicate would be…loaded with…selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]”… “the destruction of (that) aircraft will be triggered by radio signal.”
The Cubans would be blamed.
Finally, another variation is described by Bamford: “On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral…on his historic journey. Lemnitzer “proposed … that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, ‘the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that…the fault lies with (Cuba)…” “by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.”
Thus, Bamford notes, “as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn’s possible death as a pretext to launch a war.”
The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable, according to Bamford, “of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a (war on Cuba).”
Can we be sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of Sept. 11th is entirely out of the question?
Next week, a more precise look at the events of that fateful day.
And what about bin Laden? I’ll have more on him too. And the arrests of people named as terrorists around the world.
The Great Deception
Part 2 of a multi-part series (Part 3 airs Feb 4) Transcript of Mon., Jan. 28 2002 Broadcast
What really happened on Sept. 11th? “9/11 -- Part 2.”
Next, more troubling questions. Part 2 in my series of commentaries about the events of September 11th.
As you’ve heard in the panel discussion, a common explanation as to why no U.S. military interceptors took to the skies on September 11th until it was too late, is that it was “simple incompetence.”
Well, let me deal with the “incompetence theory.” By first taking you back to October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report:
9:19 a.m.: the flight departs
9:24: The Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control
9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact.
9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.
9:54 – 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.
So what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All personnel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines, which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident illustrates.
For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C.
It flies over the White House, turns sharply and heads toward the Pentagon. Everyone – and I mean everyone – now knows these planes are very bad news. It’s been reported on all TV networks for more than half an hour that this is a terrorist attack.
Now, Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It’s home to Air Force One, the President’s plane. It’s home base for two combat-ready squadrons of jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews is only 12 miles from the White House.
On September 11th the squadrons there were:
The 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, equipped with F-16s
The 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A, equipped F/A-18s
This information was on the website of the base on September 11th. [POSSIBLE (cuts)] On September 12th, Andrews chose to update its website. I find it odd that after the update there’s no mention of the F-16 and F-18 fighters. The base becomes, according to the website, home to a transport squadron only.
Yet at 6:30 the evening of September 11th NBC Nightly News, along with many outlets, reported: "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly … a protective cover over Washington, D.C."
Throughout the northeastern United States are many air bases. But that morning no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which have the longest lead time and are 12 miles from the White house.
Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the “Incompetence Theory.” Incompetence usually earns reprimands.
This causes me to ask – and other media need to ask – if there were “stand down” orders.
Next week, bin Laden was a longtime close ally of the CIA, according to the CIA itself. Why did he suddenly turn against them? Or did he?
Report by National Transportation Safety Board re crash of chartered Learjet 26 October 1999,carrying golfer Payne Stewart: [link] click on “Aviation,” then “Major investigations,” then “Aberdeen, South Dakota.”
For commercial aviation flight rules and procedures: [link]
- Copyright VisionTV Canada 2002 – Transcript Republished Under Fair Use Provisions of the Copyright Act